JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. B. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents on call.

2. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2007 passed in T.A. No. 20/2003 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Guwahati whereby the appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2003 passed in T.S. No. 45/1991 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)

No. 1, Guwahati.

3. This Court by an order dated 04.02.2008 admitted the instant appeal on the following two substantial questions of law that arises for consideration:

1. Whether the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Court below on the basis of pleading, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the principal respondent is perverse and contrary to the pleadings, evidences on records ?

2. Whether the principal respondent had proved his right, title and interest over the suit land as required by law ?

4. The brief fact of the instant case is that the respondents herein had filed the suit being T.S. No.45/1991 against one Gobinda Das, the predecessors in interest of the present appellants and Shri Hem Chandra Das seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the land described in Schedule-B; for evicting the defendant from the house described in Schedule-B; for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and/or his family members and/or his agents and/or employees from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, erecting any house upon the suit land, renting out the house and/or the part of it to any person as stated in the suit land; for cost of the suit and for any other relief/reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled to.

5. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No. 247 of K.P. Patta No. 26 of village Madghoria, Mouza- Beltola as described in schedule-A to the plaint. The plaintiff purchased the said suit land vide registered sale deed being Sale Deed No. 324/69 dated 25.05.1969 and took possession thereof on the same day. The defendant No. 1 is the elder brother of the plaintiff. In the year 1985, the plaintiff allowed his elder brother to reside on the house erected by the plaintiff over the schedule-B land as described in the plaint on the basis of the assurance given by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff that he would construct a house by purchasing land at Bonda or Jorabat and would shift thereto along with his family members. But the defendant No. 1, with an ulterior motive to occupy the land and house, rented out a part of the house standing over the suit land in 1989 and when the plaintiff raised objection, the defendant No. 1 and his wife, son and daughter physically assaulted the plaintiff and his children which compelled the plaintiff to ask the defendant No. 1 to vacate the house in the month of September, 1989. However, instead of vacating the house, the defendant No. 1 collected materials for construction over the suit land. Apart from that, the defendant No. 1 also forcefully occupied the Panshop of the plaintiff situated on the western boundary of his land which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit seeking the declarations and consequential relief(s) as already stated herein above.

6. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 duly contested the case by filing written statement. It is the specific case of the defendants stated in the written statement that the suit land was purchased from the income of the joint family as the plaintiff at that relevant point of time was an unemployed youth having no source of income and as such at the request of the plaintiff the land was purchased in the name of the plaintiff so that he could avail the chance of getting a loan from any bank to start a business. It is the further case of the defendants in the written statement that at the request of the plaintiff, the defendants allow